Hunter facing charges after death of beloved elk named Bullwinkle

[M_ray]

So that isnt and won't ever be a trophy,  but the other field/front yard bull killed with bait nearby is a trophy?

You keep making this argument but you are missing the entire point. The majority here take issue with the fact that your friends bull was taken in a closed unit and the one you keep referring to was legal ... its not hard to understand? 

If you would like to discuss the ethics of whether or not guys would call an animal a trophy once shot in a field then start another thread 

[Dan-o]

His post was in response to JDHasty's long post about the Reichert bull being tame.

The other hunt seems similar from that perspective.

Personally, I think both bulls are trophy specimens for their species......   but neither rates very high on my fair chase meter.

But, legal is legal, and I won't condemn someone for picking up an easy animal as long as it's legal.
I know that I have picked up more than my fair share of easy animals but they aren't my true trophies.

[Odell]

To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.

 Well said.

I agree, it's also worrisome that some hunters themselves have made this such a big deal that it will harm hunters in the end.

It is a sad day when hunters who simply want the laws enforced are blamed for this mess. If we don't have rule of law we lose hunting altogether.

[Dan-o]

To me Reichert's guilt or innocence is probably not as worrisome as what impact his taking of this bull (which by all accounts appears to have been a "pet", that had a name and that was fed regularly alfalfa hay in a fenced area by local kids) could have on legitimate hunters and hunting in general. Most of what I've read indicates this trophy was killed without any remote semblance of "fair chase" or any traditional notions of fair play or ethical hunting. So far, news of this episode has been kept fairly local and I'm hoping we don't end up with another "Cecil" incident once some anti-hunter individual or group uses social media to feign shock and outrage, which then spreads like wildfire and gets shared by others who chime in and paint all hunters as elitist and wealthy mass killers who care little for wildlife and animal rights.

 Well said.

I agree, it's also worrisome that some hunters themselves have made this such a big deal that it will harm hunters in the end.

It is a sad day when hunters who simply want the laws enforced are blamed for this mess. If we don't have rule of law we lose hunting altogether.

I suspect that just about all of us want the law enforced.

But, when hunters turn on hunters and don't let due process run it's course, I'd say that's also a sad day. 

[Alchase]

No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.

[Dan-o]

No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.

No offense taken.

That's why I said:   I suspect that just about all of us want the law enforced.     

I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet.   I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.

*  I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt.  I have no dog in this hunt.
**  I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
***  if you're ever back in Kent, look me up.  18-26

[huntnphool]

No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.

No offense taken.

I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet.   I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.

*  I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt.  I have no dog in this hunt.
**  I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
***  if you're ever back in Kent, look me up.  18-26

 Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit.

[Dan-o]

No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.

No offense taken.

I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet.   I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.

*  I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt.  I have no dog in this hunt.
**  I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
***  if you're ever back in Kent, look me up.  18-26

 Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit.

Understood......   and I hope that justice is served.   

But, I've seen other cases of good people on here that were falsely accused.   I think I even remember someone trying to call you out for some nonsense about not owning land that you were posting and trying to keep others off of (apple orchard incident).

Now, what little I know of you tells me that you're as honest and upstanding a guy as there is.   But that doesn't stop internet conjecture.

And while the one "indisputable fact" might be just that, if we weren't there it just seems dangerous to do internet sleuthery.

I have a lot of respect for some of the folks taking your exact position - you are one of them. 

I'd just rather it worked it's way through the actual court rather than the internet court of opinions......   but it may be just a tad late for that.     

[huntnphool]

No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.

No offense taken.

I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet.   I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.

*  I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt.  I have no dog in this hunt.
**  I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
***  if you're ever back in Kent, look me up.  18-26

 Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit.

Understood......   and I hope that justice is served.   

But, I've seen other cases of good people on here that were falsely accused.   I think I even remember someone trying to call you out for some nonsense about not owning land that you were posting and trying to keep others off of (apple orchard incident).

Now, what little I know of you tells me that you're as honest and upstanding a guy as there is.   But that doesn't stop internet conjecture.

And while the one "indisputable fact" might be just that, if we weren't there it just seems dangerous to do internet sleuthery.

I have a lot of respect for some of the folks taking your exact position - you are one of them. 

I'd just rather it worked it's way through the actual court rather than the internet court of opinions......   but it may be just a tad late for that.     

 

 Where the discussion will get interesting is after a verdict is reached. If he ends up getting permission from the state, there will be a lot of pissed off people speculating that the only reason is because of his "contributions", which although admirable, should not grant him exemptions to printed rules/laws that everyone else has been mandated to follow.

 It's certainly going to be a lesson one way or the other.

[mfswallace]

First court date on Tuesday, who's gonna be there and report back to us???

[Dan-o]

No offense Dan'o but I have to disagree, there seems to be a few who are going out of their way to muddy this whole thing up. There is one "member" that was threatening lawsuits to other members and this forum to shut down the discussion.
So no, not all want the law to be enforced.

No offense taken.

I just don't like seeing cases tried on the internet.   I've seen too many cases where a good person was smeared because someone had really solid 4th hand information.

*  I don't know this guy or anything about the hunt.  I have no dog in this hunt.
**  I am all for conducting legal hunts and prosecuting scofflaws.
***  if you're ever back in Kent, look me up.  18-26

 Most of us are only concerned with the one indisputable fact, the bull was killed in a closed (as per state regulations) unit.

Understood......   and I hope that justice is served.   

But, I've seen other cases of good people on here that were falsely accused.   I think I even remember someone trying to call you out for some nonsense about not owning land that you were posting and trying to keep others off of (apple orchard incident).

Now, what little I know of you tells me that you're as honest and upstanding a guy as there is.   But that doesn't stop internet conjecture.

And while the one "indisputable fact" might be just that, if we weren't there it just seems dangerous to do internet sleuthery.

I have a lot of respect for some of the folks taking your exact position - you are one of them. 

I'd just rather it worked it's way through the actual court rather than the internet court of opinions......   but it may be just a tad late for that.     

 

 Where the discussion will get interesting is after a verdict is reached. If he ends up getting permission from the state, there will be a lot of pissed off people speculating that the only reason is because of his "contributions", which although admirable, should not grant him exemptions to printed rules/laws that everyone else has been mandated to follow.

 It's certainly going to be a lesson one way or the other.

100% agree.

I am still naive enough to believe in the system, but my faith continues to get shaken almost daily these days....

[JDHasty]

His post was in response to JDHasty's long post about the Reichert bull being tame.

The other hunt seems similar from that perspective.

Personally, I think both bulls are trophy specimens for their species......   but neither rates very high on my fair chase meter.

But, legal is legal, and I won't condemn someone for picking up an easy animal as long as it's legal.
I know that I have picked up more than my fair share of easy animals but they aren't my true trophies.

I was wrong to post what I did re: the "trophy value."  It does not belong in the discussion re: the legality of this hunt. 

What matters is the legality.   

Let's just say WDFW wanted this bull lethally removed?  Would letting a South Central Big Game Tag Holder be a legal way to accomplish that end?

No, nO, and NO!!! And WDFW knows this as a stone cold natural fact.  The reason we got to this point is due to abuses that have occurred in the past with big bulls like this one. 

If I were looking at this from a purely pragmatic standpoint... Mr Reichert's taking of this bull left another legal bull for others to chase.  So that could make someone else really happy. 

But the laws must be applied equally.  This bull was lusted after by many, but since he never wandered during hunting season....  He simply lived in a no branch antler elk hunting GMU and as such nobody was remotely likely to get a chance at him.  Many tried to drive him up north and failed. 

You cannot look at the restrictions placed on that hunt and the Controlling Legal Authority, The Game Regs, and say that putting that restriction in place was done without deliberation.

They are not there for no reason.  They are there to point  out that bulls like this one that live a charmed life in a no elk hunting or no branch antler elk hunting area, and there are others like him, are not part of the bargain should you win the draw. 

That South Central Big Game Tag has very few restrictions placed on it that do not apply across the board to all hunters and those restrictions are explicitly and unambiguously spelled out in the Game Regs. 

If it is OK for WDFW to make an exception for the South Central Big Game Raffle Tag, that means it would have been OK for WDFW to make an exception for any other hunter.  It would mean that if the consideration was that taking this big bull would leave another totally legal for someone else then...  WTH does it matter if Todd Reichert took it or someone else took it using an eastside any Elk Tag?

WDFW simply cannot, and would not, IMHO make an exception, particularly on a high visibility bull like this.   

So that leaves us with WDFW making an interpretation on the SCBGRT bull elk tag that says it is valid in GMU 334 which flat out contradicts what is published in the Game Regs.

Let's say JDHasty made a call.  No Mr Hasty, read your Game Regs and it says that GMU is never open for branch antler bulls. 

But then let's say Mr Reichert's hunting consultant made that call.... Given what is clearly stated as the restrictions on that tag.  Let's just say:  I think the response would not be so polite.               

[kiticaashunter]

Here is the bull I was referring to.




(photo removed at owner request)

Not sure why the pic was deleted?  It says it was by owner request?  This is a pic that is available on the internet in many places.  By posting it no rules of this forum were broken.  This is just another tame front yard bull, and in this case  bait was used. So l once again here is the pic.

If this gets removed again please provide a legitimate reason for doing so. Not a single one of your rules was broken the first time I posted it or this time.

( photo removed at request of owner )

[emac]

Kiticaashunter why do you and all the other people defending TR continually keep bringing this hunt up and comparing the two. There is one big difference this bull was killed in a LEGAL unit. Let me say that again it was killed in a LEGAL unit. This bull was not shoot over bait, but if it would have been it still would have been LEGAL. How many other hunters had tried to get this bull through the years and have been unsuccessful.  There were numerous tags available for branched antler bulls in this open and LEGAL unit.
Oh wait I know why you guys keep bringing it up. You wanna try to deflect away from the issue being discussed. You guys aren't happy that someone else got this particular bull because Todd really wanted to get this bull as he hunted it in the prior weeks and had planned to go back after it with the auction tag.
So quit trying to compare these hunts. One was in a LEGAL and open hunting unit and one was in a closed hunting unit to branched antler bulls which equals not LEGAL.
If 334 was an open unit to branched antler bulls and Todd shoot the bull he did I could of cared less as probably 90% of the other people commenting on this thread

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[TVHunts]

Kiticaashunter why do you and all the other people defending TR continually keep bringing this hunt up and comparing the two. There is one big difference this bull was killed in a LEGAL unit. Let me say that again it was killed in a LEGAL unit. This bull was not shoot over bait, but if it would have been it still would have been LEGAL. How many other hunters had tried to get this bull through the years and have been unsuccessful.  There were numerous tags available for branched antler bulls in this open and LEGAL unit.
Oh wait I know why you guys keep bringing it up. You wanna try to deflect away from the issue being discussed. You guys aren't happy that someone else got this particular bull because Todd really wanted to get this bull as he hunted it in the prior weeks and had planned to go back after it with the auction tag.
So quit trying to compare these hunts. One was in a LEGAL and open hunting unit and one was in a closed hunting unit to branched antler bulls which equals not LEGAL.
If 334 was an open unit to branched antler bulls and Todd shoot the bull he did I could of cared less as probably 90% of the other people commenting on this thread

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Assuming eMac's story is true there is absolutely no comparison between the two situations. 

Also, the Bullwinkle bull would take food from the hand allegedly. He was allegedly in a farmers field when shot where I am guessing there was ample food.  Seems a lot like the pot calling the kettle black on the shooting the elk over bait comparison. And again, in a LEGAL hunting unit, allegedly.  (Trying to keep the defamation lawsuit target off my back)

I'm not so sure the owner of the forum nor the moderators owe you an explanation for removing the photo though.  I am guessing that reposting it will get you that response